. . . between Juan Cole and an ethical, informed individual?

All the difference in the world.

Way to go, Camille--give 'em hell.

But there's just one problem with the idea that McCain, born before Pearl Harbor, can't have a clear vision for the future: It's a non-sequitor. Why does one's age, or when one was born, necessarily have anything to do with one's philosophy or vision? Much more important is/are one's education, training, experiences, etc.

McCain's views are based in a clear view of America's proper position in the world and--very importantly--limited government. Obama, on the other hand, has shown a disturbing lack of knowledge about American civics--57 states? be president for 8 or 10 years? And when, exactly, has he articulated any kind of "vision" for the future--except pure socialism? I think that despite Camille's outstanding analytical and clear-thinking ability, she may have become a little star-struck over the Great One, ignoring his obvious weaknesses and placing far too much faith in someone who done nothing to earn it.

Stringing words together into grammatically correct sentences does not qualify one as an intelligent or knowledgeable person. It's the content that matters.

On that score, Cintra Wilson must be just barely above brain-dead, because this is some of the most idiotic nonsense I have ever read.

Does Salon not have enough good columnists? Is this the best they can do, that they have to publish this [stuff]?

I'm contacting Salon tomorrow and demanding that they give me a high-paying online column. I can write a lot better stuff than this--and it will actually make sense.

It was extremely disappointing to watch Charles Gibson, grand ABC poo-bah, looking down his nose past his granny glasses, unable--or unwilling--to hide his impatience and disdain with the answers Sarah Palin was giving to his carefully designed "gotcha" questions.

Not content to use his exclusive interview time with Palin to allow her to reveal herself to the nation, Gibson felt compelled--in ways that he and his fellow broadcasters never seem to feel when interviewing Democratic candidates like Obama or Biden--to use every possible verbal and semantic deception to trick Palin into saying something that would embarrass her or reveal her to be uninformed, backward, or "unprepared" for the White House.

The real problem with this interview was not the answers that Palin gave, which were competent, graceful, and informed. The real issue was the continued, ongoing, uninterrupted, and unapologetic efforts of the media--this time it was ABC's turn--to campaign for the Democratic ticket. This is shameful, dishonest, and completely unprofessional behavior that ought to not be tolerated by the viewing public. In fact, the outcry ought to be so great, so loud--through loss of ratings, loss of advertising, angry emails, and other appropriate protests--that no broadcast "journalist" would ever again be tempted to pull such a stunt.

It ought to happen that way . . . but alas, it won't. And so it will continue.

Will we ever again see honest, objective journalism on television? Even liberals ought to recognize what completely unethical behavior is involved here, and how severely it damages the entire enterprise of civil discourse.

Does anyone even care?

Barack Obama has a 20-year on-going close friendship with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who wants to make America into a marxist gulag, but Howard Bess is not afraid of that. No--he is afraid of Sarah Palin, who holds strong convictions that homosexuality is immoral behavior.

What is wrong with this type of thinking? It's idiotic nonsense, that's what's wrong with it.

It's the same kind of wrong thinking that would reach the conclusion, as Mr. Bess did in his book, that today's homosexuals are minister/healers in the mold of Jesus Christ--idiotic nonsense.

But according to Howard Bess, it is Sarah Palin we should fear, because she tried to warn her fellow Alaskans about his book.

David Talbot went digging for dirt on Sarah Palin, and he found some. But mostly he just got himself--and Howard Bess--dirty.

You're not suggesting that this is the Republicans' fault, are you, Mr. Keillor? Surely you jest. Your glasses must be fogged over.

If you'll take a closer look, you'll see that virtually every hand on virtually every regulatory throttle in this long-simmering mess is at the end of a Democrat arm, or a Democrat-appointee arm.

It's so easy to say "Republican greed" every time there is a financial issue in the news. So easy--and so wrong.

I have a question for you, Mr. Keillor:

Is this all you guys can ever think of to say?

John McCain is no longer a "liberal's conservative" and the darling maverick of the liberal press. He can't get elected as a Republican that way. So now the liberals have turned on him, in their usual nasty way, for "betraying them."

This article by Edward McClelland is a typical example.

Palin leave the ticket? You wish! This steady stream of articles suggesting that Palin is not qualified, that she ought to leave the ticket, gracefully step aside, fall on her sword, take one for the team, etc., is nothing but the desperate wishes of liberal writers who are still worried that Palin might somehow find a way to energize the Republican base and enough undecided voters to swing the election to the McCain-Palin ticket.

Oh my god--they are SO worried!

"Please, Sarah--Leave the ticket!"

Obama criticizes Bush's increased deficit, and then proposes trillions of dollars in giveaways while promising, with a straight face, that he won't raise taxes on 95% of Americans--and you say that McCain lost the debate?

Well, maybe in the sense that he failed to point out that Obama's economic proposals are pure idiocy. Or lies. Or--probably--BOTH.

Does Obama really think that Americans are so stupid that they won't know that the only way he can fulfill all of his extravagant giveaway campaign promises will be to (that's right) raise their taxes, even though he said he wouldn't?

Yes, he does.

And he's right. They really are that stupid.